seeing is forgetting the name of the thing one sees

In ‘Being & Circumstance’ (1985) Irwin describes phenomenal art as an extended art activity involving ‘a process of reasoning between our mediated culture (being) and our immediate presence (circumstance).’ As it seems to me ‘being’ is pre-established, the conditioned way we come to view and understand a work. ‘Being’ influences our perception of any particular ‘circumstance’, which is in turn perhaps best described as the experience itself, the unique conditions of directly seeing and engaging with a work.

- as a side note after considering these notions it become evident I need to be mindful of how I use the terms ‘viewing’ and ’seeing’. ‘Viewing’ seems to imbue more of a sense of looking in a particular way, with a particular notion already in mind. It implies an overall awareness of the act of looking, whereas ’seeing’ evokes an awareness of something from the act of looking.

Through this philosophy Irwin advocates elevating the consciousness of our visual and experiential reasoning processes (i.e. perception). ‘Being’ ‘cuts the world down to a manageable size’ using logic, reason and rationality to frame it objectively. Our ‘circumstance’ on the other hand is continually opening up perception, we see and use judgment based on the current context.

So in the reception of art we move between this ‘being’ & ‘circumstance’.

‘what appeared to be a question of object/nonobject has turned out to be a question of seeing and not seeing, of how it is we actually perceive or fail to perceive ‘things’ in their real contexts.’